Press Roomhttps://cfif.org/v/index.php/press-room
Sun, 07 Jun 2020 05:30:15 +0000CFIF CMSen-gbCFIF Praises Treasury Department/IRS Rule Protecting Donor Privacyhttps://cfif.org/v/index.php/press-room/5036-cfif-praises-treasury-departmentirs-rule-protecting-donor-privacy
https://cfif.org/v/index.php/press-room/5036-cfif-praises-treasury-departmentirs-rule-protecting-donor-privacyALEXANDRIA, VA – Yesterday, the U.S. Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) released final regulations relieving certain not-for-profit organizations of the requirement to provide the names and addresses of donors on the Schedule B form as part of their annual tax returns filed with the IRS.

In response, Center for Individual Freedom (CFIF) president Jeffrey Mazzella issued the following statement praising the decision:

“CFIF enthusiastically applauds the Trump Administration for finally accomplishing this critical measure to protect Americans’ First Amendment rights. Furthermore, we thank Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R – Kentucky), House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R - Louisiana) and Congressman Kevin Brady (R – Texas), among other members of Congress, for their leadership and commitment on this important issue.

"As Americans have become all too aware, assaults against our First Amendment freedoms of speech and association by government officials have increased in recent years. For example, rogue IRS officials in the mold of Lois Lerner have collected and leaked private information regarding contributors to 501(c) nonprofit organizations contained in mandatory Schedule B forms that by law were to remain confidential. Additionally, vindictive state officials have demanded Schedule B forms and confidential donor information.

"For its part, the IRS acknowledged that Schedule B information is irrelevant to oversight of filings or enforcement of the tax code, thus serving no substantive legal purpose. Previous IRS Commissioners and others have also questioned the need for Schedule B forms and admitted that the IRS can't guarantee confidentiality of the information contained in them. That’s simply intolerable in this era of persecution of private citizens for their political beliefs.

“We at CFIF commends the Treasury Department and IRS for finally eliminating the requirement to disclose the names and addresses of donors on the Schedule B for many nonprofit organizations."

]]>Press ReleasesWed, 27 May 2020 19:23:20 +0000Coalition Urges Against Denying Patents, Exclusivity and Property Rights to Biomedical Innovators https://cfif.org/v/index.php/press-room/5006-coalition-urges-against-denying-patents-exclusivity-and-property-rights-to-biomedical-innovators-
https://cfif.org/v/index.php/press-room/5006-coalition-urges-against-denying-patents-exclusivity-and-property-rights-to-biomedical-innovators-In a letter to Congress, CFIF joined with a large coalition on a letter expressing “strong opposition to the idea several Democratic lawmakers are pushing: To deny patents, exclusivity, and property rights to biomedical innovators, targeted speciﬁcally at those working furiously on vaccines, diagnostics, therapies, and cures for the COVID-19 scourge.”

The letter, which can be viewed below, was organized by Conservatives for Property Rights.

We write to express strong opposition to the idea several Democratic lawmakers are pushing: To deny patents, exclusivity, and property rights to biomedical innovators, targeted specifically at those working furiously on vaccines, diagnostics, therapies, and cures for the COVID-19 scourge. While the proposal is said to apply only to medicines for COVID-19, even that limitation would be dangerous, disruptive, and unacceptable. Therefore, Congress must exercise prudence and good judgment and reject this shortsighted idea.

The proposal calls for three exclusivity-stripping measures to be included in a COVID-related bill. Biopharmaceutical companies would be denied the following essential patent and private intellectual property rights:

• “[E]xclusivity for any COVID-19 vaccine, drug, or other therapeutic—whether it has been developed with U.S. taxpayer dollars and publicly funded, or not.”

• Sale of “any COVID-19 vaccine, drug or therapeutic at an unreasonable price, whether or not it has been developed with U.S. taxpayer dollars.”

• “Full transparency,” dictated as “publicly report[ing] the total expenditures of the manufacturer on: research and development, disaggregated by clinical trial phase and the percentage of those total expenditures that was derived from federal funds; materials and manufacturing; and meeting statutory standards and carrying out postmarket requirements of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.”

To float such stunted concepts demonstrates complete, perhaps willful ignorance of America’s great assets, patents and exclusivity. The U.S. patent system was founded on exclusivity for limited duration to the “first and true inventor.” The right to exclude others from the newly created property of an invention, including from making, selling, using, or importing a protected invention such as a drug, is balanced by full disclosure of the invention. This “patent including the patentee’s competitors, has served the United States and the American people exceptionally well. It has yielded the Founders’ goal of “progress of science and useful arts.”

Moreover, to deny exclusivity provided by patents or regulatory means, for government to dictate price, or to require disclosure of sensitive proprietary commercial information for an invention demolishes the foundation of America’s private property rights-centered IP system and our innovation ecosystem. This would be a tragedy of immeasurable degree—not only for COVID sufferers, but patients fighting any disease, virus, or malady. It would benefit competitors like China and be a national and economic security setback for America.

We have full confidence in urging rejection of the exclusivity- and IP-destroying proposal. We are in good company.

Ranking Democratic Member of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property Chris Coons recently said, “I am having conversations about vaccines and vaccine development and bio–defensive measures. If you want a world–class biopharma industry, you got to pay attention to whether or not a company that invents something or develops something new is actually able to recover their costs. And whether they can recover their costs and make a profit largely depends on the IP environment in which they’re operating.”

Joseph Allen, Democratic Sen. Birch Bayh’s Judiciary staffer responsible for the landmark legislation known as the Bayh-Dole Act, which celebrates its 40th anniversary this year, highlights how government price controls—euphemistically called “reasonable pricing”— don’t work. Allen writes: “The result wasn’t a lowering of prices but a collapse of partnerships with [the National Institutes of Health after it put such price controls in licensing terms in the 1990s]. Here’s what then NIH Director Harold Varmus said when he rescinded the provision in 1995: ’… the pricing clause has driven industry away from potentially beneficial scientific collaborations with (NIH) scientists without providing an offsetting benefit to the public.’”

Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar has warned, ““We would want to ensure that we work to make it affordable, but we can’t control that price because we need the private sector to invest. . . . Price controls won’t get us there.”

Dr. Anthony Fauci of the NIH regards private-sector drug firms operating in the free market as indispensable: “We always need a pharmaceutical partner. . . . I can’t think of a vaccine, even one in which we’ve put substantial intellectual and resource input, that was brought to the goal line without a partnership with industry. So this is a very natural process that we’re doing right now.” Further, “I have not seen in my experience situations in which we were involved in the development of a vaccine, particularly for low- and middle-income countries that really needed it, where the pharmaceutical companies priced it out of their reach.”

The practical role of IP and regulatory exclusivity, market-based pricing, and confidential proprietary information amidst multiple competitors moving fast to develop competing products, on a biopharmaceutical invention or something else, boils down to giving the owner an open field to commercialize the invention—which often costs many times that of invention. Exclusive rights are critical to raising private investment for developing the product and the market for it, hopefully succeeding commercially and thereby recouping up-front research-and-development costs, as well as fund future R&D.

Thus, preserving exclusivity for the patent or regulatorily provided term of any forthcoming COVID-19 drug is vital to finding effective medicines for the next virus. The cumulative benefit across the innovation ecosystem is seen today in already having more than 300 clinical trials on potential COVID medicines, in sequencing this novel coronavirus in weeks instead of months or years, in the pace of identifying antiviral candidates in just 2-3 months, and realistically expecting a vaccine in 12-18 months rather than 10 years.

Therefore, we urge Congress to spurn the destruction of the dynamo at the heart of America’s innovation: intellectual property and free enterprise. Do not let these misguided proposals become part of any legislation. Send them back to the pit full of bad ideas.

Respectfully,

James Edwards
Executive Director
Conservatives for Property Rights

Ed Martin
President
Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund

Ryan Ellis
President
Center for a Free Economy

George Landrith
President
Frontiers of Freedom

Seton Motley
President
Less Government

C. Preston Noell III
President
Tradition, Family, Property, Inc.

Jeffrey Mazzella
President
Center for Individual Freedom

Kevin L. Kearns
President
U.S. Business & Industry Council

Curt Levey
President
The Committee for Justice

Ashley Baker
Director of Public Policy
The Committee for Justice

Thomas Schatz
President
Council for Citizens Against Government Waste

Charles Sauer
President
Market Institute

The Hon. J. Kenneth Blackwell
Former U.S. Ambassador
United Nations Human Rights Commission

]]>Press ReleasesFri, 08 May 2020 19:11:09 +0000Liability Protections Needed for Those on Frontlines of COVID-19 Response and Relief Effortshttps://cfif.org/v/index.php/press-room/4961-liability-protections-needed-for-those-on-frontlines-of-covid-19-response-and-relief-efforts
https://cfif.org/v/index.php/press-room/4961-liability-protections-needed-for-those-on-frontlines-of-covid-19-response-and-relief-effortsThe Center for Individual Freedom (CFIF) this week joined a coalition of nearly two dozen organizations, led by the Center for Freedom and Prosperity, on a letter urging Congress to support stronger liability protections for businesses, healthcare professionals and other essential workers on the frontlines of the nation’s coronavirus response and relief efforts.

“While the rest of America has come together to fight this pandemic, some trial lawyers have instead plotted to line their pockets with COVID-19 related lawsuits. Their greed is hurting America in this time of crisis, and lawmakers must put their exploitation of this public health crisis into check,” the letter reads.

The undersigned organizations write to ask for your support in providing stronger liability protections that are consistent with the principles of federalism to those currently on the frontlines of the nation’s coronavirus response and relief efforts.

Members representing both sides of the aisle in Congress, including Sens. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Az.), Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), and Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) have raised the need for Congress to do so in some capacity, and for good reason. While the rest of America has come together to fight this pandemic, some trial lawyers have instead plotted to line their pockets with COVID-19 related lawsuits. Their greed is hurting America in this time of crisis, and lawmakers must put their exploitation of this public health crisis into check.

Because of the looming threat posed by the trial lawyers’ tort agendas, doctors and healthcare professionals remain fearful of making the tough healthcare decisions that are needed to respond to this pandemic; hospitals, nursing homes, and assisted living facilities are afraid that the care delivered in unprecedented circumstances will be second-guessed; manufacturers are hesitant to produce essential products; and transportation companies are risking their very existence to keep America supplied.

If trial lawyers’ predatory, self-serving agenda succeeds, it will hobble our nation’s economic recovery. Costs will significantly rise on the American people in the form of higher healthcare bills, reduced competition and access to treatment and care, and increased prices on the goods and services that they need to weather this crisis. Vital industries that support our economy could suffer catastrophic bankruptcies. Worst of all, much of the innovation and capital needed to find cures, both to this disease and the economic devastation posed by it, will face significant delays as well, exacerbating the feelings of hopelessness and despair felt throughout the nation. Only the nation’s trial lawyers would benefit from this type of system.

We urge you to embrace reasonable constitutional reform proposals to create shields from trial lawyers’ frivolous, costly, and job-killing litigation schemes. Doing so will advance the interests and well-being of the American people through the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.

]]>Press ReleasesWed, 15 Apr 2020 14:40:17 +0000Coalition Urges Congress to Oppose Rate-Setting in Coronavirus Packagehttps://cfif.org/v/index.php/press-room/4921-coalition-urges-congress-to-oppose-rate-setting-in-coronavirus-package
https://cfif.org/v/index.php/press-room/4921-coalition-urges-congress-to-oppose-rate-setting-in-coronavirus-packageThe Center for Individual Freedom (“CFIF”) today joined a coalition of 24 organizations, led by the Taxpayers Protection Alliance, on a letter urging Congress "to reject any attempt to include any language that would seek to address surprise medical billing by creating a government-mandated benchmark (i.e. rate-setting) to determine out-of-network rates for physicians."

As you debate and consider a legislative response for those affected by COVID-19, the undersigned groups representing millions of taxpayers and consumers urge you to reject any attempt to include any language that would seek to address surprise medical billing by creating a government-mandated benchmark (i.e. rate-setting) to determine out-of-network rates for physicians. Government price controls for medical bills would be particularly devastating at a time of great stress for our nation’s patients and healthcare providers.

Doctors and hospitals are on the front line of treating and fighting this disease. Mandating in-network rates would result in direct government price controls that would artificially suppress rates for providers offering out-of-network care, resulting in enormous financial losses that would be shifted to local hospitals and emergency rooms.

Many of these facilities — particularly the ones serving rural, hard-to-reach communities across the nation — are already operating under razor-thin profit margins, if they are even profitable at all. Further compounding their financial woes could exacerbate a growing doctor shortage and lead to an increase in rural provider consolidation or even closure. The net result of any of these outcomes would be fewer options and higher costs for already at-risk patients.

Lawmakers in California enacted a flawed approach called “benchmarking” in 2017 and patients across the state are suffering from the consequences. Benchmarking at the federal level would give the government authority to set arbitrarily low rates for physicians providing out-of-network care by tying payments to insurers’ deeply discounted in-network averages. This harmful rate-setting approach is included in legislation advanced by the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee, the House Energy & Commerce Committee, and the House Education & Labor Committee.

It is critical that at a time of a national emergency you focus on the needs of the country and not use the pandemic as an opportunity to enact government rate-setting that would harm our patients and our healthcare system.

Good afternoon, and thank you for this important opportunity to speak before you on this critical issue.

My name is Timothy Lee, and I have served for fourteen years as Senior Vice President of Legal and Public Affairs at the Center for Individual Freedom, or CFIF. CFIF was established almost twenty-five years ago in 1998, as a nonprofit organization founded to defend and advance the principles of free markets, constitutional rights and technological innovation. CFIF claims over 300,000 supporters and activists across the United States, including thousands here in Nebraska. We work on issues spanning legislative, executive, and judicial matters, and it’s important to note that we focus on issues of state and local import, not simply national matters.

That is why I am here today, and on that basis I speak in strong support of L.B. 1046, which would wisely cap cable franchise fees at 3% going forward, to reflect the realities of today’s telecommunications and consumer markets.

First, it’s important to place this proposal in historical context to help highlight its appropriateness.

The current 5% cap on consumers’ total bills originates from federal laws enacted three decades ago, at cable television’s advent and sudden expansion. At the time, those fees helped compensate localities for the new costs of installing cable infrastructure upon public rights of way. Today, however, such fees center less on public right-of-way and other sunk costs, and more upon increasing costs of licensing television programming. Accordingly, the original logic of those rates has become far less applicable or appropriate today.

In similar vein, it’s critical to highlight that three decades ago when the current 5% cap was implemented, consumers’ typical cable bills were just $10 or less per month. Accordingly, that 5% fee meant approximately $0.50 or less to consumers. Today, in contrast, cable bills can reach $100 or more, significantly compounding the monthly cost to consumers by 10 times or more. While the intervening three decades have brought exponentially greater options to programming and service, the consequent increase in monthly costs and rates paid by consumers now exceeds its original proportionality. For that additional reason, historical context demonstrates that the 5% limit is as anachronism.

The old law hasn’t kept up with market changes, so under the current cap consumers in Nebraska and across the country are stuck paying billions of dollars in franchise fees unrelated to public right-of-way costs, and in much higher amounts than during the 1980s when the cap was devised.

A second critical rationale behind L.B. 1046 relates to one of the principles most central and foundational to CFIF that I referenced earlier – free markets and opposition to government laws tipping the scales in the marketplace, thereby picking winners and losers.

In today’s marketplace, consumers can choose between cable, as well as satellite or streaming video, for their programming. Unfortunately, existing law discriminates against cable instead of treating all entities equitably. Specifically, Nebraska consumers must pay up to the 5% franchise fee each month for cable, but 0% for satellite or streaming video. As I mentioned a moment ago, that disparity is no longer justified by sunk costs like public right-of-way expenses. Additionally, cable is subject to the applicable 2% sales tax, whereas satellite is not.

As a result, taxes and regulatory fees paid by cable customers can be two times or higher the amounts paid for satellite and streaming. That’s an artificial, top-down governmental distortion of the marketplace, which undermines open and fair competition in today’s modern consumer marketplace. It also handicaps cable providers in terms of infrastructure improvements, modernization, and innovation vis-à-vis competitors.

Nebraska consumers thus pay millions of dollars per year to local governments in the form of cable franchise fees that simply don’t meet a basic fairness test. With consumers in Nebraska and elsewhere paying ever-higher amounts from their paychecks for basic necessities and in daily life, a new 3% cap would bring them much-needed relief while still allowing for fair compensation to localities for the costs still incurred such as right-of-way.

Thank you very much for your time, and this opportunity to meet you and discuss this important issue. I’m happy to answer and questions.

###

]]>Press ReleasesTue, 11 Feb 2020 19:41:31 +0000CFIF to Congress: Don’t Mimic California’s Failures in Addressing Surprise Medical Billing Problemhttps://cfif.org/v/index.php/press-room/4793-cfif-to-congress-dont-mimic-californias-failures-in-addressing-surprise-medical-billing-problem
https://cfif.org/v/index.php/press-room/4793-cfif-to-congress-dont-mimic-californias-failures-in-addressing-surprise-medical-billing-problemALEXANDRIA, VA – Surprise medical billing – which occurs when patients suddenly receive unexpected bills from medical providers not covered by their insurance – remains an important issue demanding a Congressional solution. According to numerous reports, it now appears that Congressional legislation addressing the issue will not emerge from Congress this calendar year due to ongoing debate. As federal lawmakers scramble to find a fix, however, it’s more important that Congress act wisely, not hastily. Specifically, the Center for Individual Freedom (“CFIF”) urges Congress to learn from the successes and failures of proposals already passed in various states as it crafts federal legislation.

What follows is a statement by CFIF Senior Vice President of Legal and Public Affairs Timothy Lee on the issue:

“All sides agree that surprise medical billing remains an important issue that Congress must address wisely and without delay.

“The need for resolution does not, however, justify hasty and counterproductive legislation that will only exacerbate the problem for American consumers. That’s particularly true if a so-called ‘compromise’ bill attempts to split the proverbial baby down the middle by copying California’s misguided approach, which has resulted in higher premiums, a 50% increase in customer complaints and multiple physician office closures. California’s approach offers a path toward Medicare for All and socialized medicine, not an improvement of the current situation.

"The state of Florida, in contrast, offers a far better solution with proven success. Florida’s approach offers a more market-based Independent Dispute Resolution (“IDR”) process to protect patients from surprise medical billing, while allowing both medical providers and insurers a voice and opportunity to fairly negotiate on a case-by-case basis using a neutral mediator rather than one-size-fits-all scheme. Unlike California, Florida’s solution also protects at-risk rural hospitals serving more vulnerable communities.

“The old adage ‘Act in haste, repent at your leisure’ applies here. The laboratories of democracy already offer examples of what works and what doesn’t on this issue. Instead of rushing to mimic the mistakes of California, Congress must instead wisely look to the IDR model that has proven so successful in Florida and elsewhere.”

CFIF is a constitutional and free market advocacy organization with over 300,000 supporters and activists nationwide.

###

]]>Press ReleasesMon, 16 Dec 2019 19:52:11 +0000CFIF Urges “No” Vote on H.R. 3, Speaker Pelosi’s Destructive Drug Pricing Billhttps://cfif.org/v/index.php/press-room/4782-cfif-urges-no-vote-on-hr-3-speaker-pelosis-destructive-drug-pricing-bill
https://cfif.org/v/index.php/press-room/4782-cfif-urges-no-vote-on-hr-3-speaker-pelosis-destructive-drug-pricing-billALEXANDRIA, VA – The U.S. House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on Speaker Nancy Pelosi's H.R. 3, the "Lower Drug Costs Now Act of 2019." The Center for Individual Freedom ("CFIF") is urging all House Members to vote "No," as the legislation would, among other significant issues, stifle innovation, limit access to life-saving medications and reduce projected gains in life-expectancy for all Americans. What follows is a statement by CFIF President Jeffrey Mazzella:

"Contrary to its misleading title, the primary effect of Pelosi’s bill wouldn’t be to lower drug costs, but to severely threaten Americans’ access to healthcare and life-saving medicines by imposing foreign price controls, compulsory arbitration with government bureaucrats, a complete restructuring of the popular Medicare Part D program and what amounts to a retroactive tax on hundreds of the most commonly used medicines in America.

"America currently claims the world’s most innovative pharmaceutical industry, accounting for two-thirds of all new lifesaving and life-improving drugs globally. But by importing price controls from foreign nations – which ignore drug patents to extort compliance – American consumers would suffer the same negative consequences that those nations’ consumers do: unavailability of those critical lifesaving and life-improving drugs.

"Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office ('CBO') itself determined that H.R. 3 would reduce the number of new medicines introduced into the market, and the Council of Economic Advisers (‘CEA’) found that the bill’s price control mechanisms would impact fully one-third of all medicines under development. The CEA also forecasts that H.R. 3 would reduce current expected U.S. life expectancy improvements over the coming decade by 25%.

"The United Nations World Health Organization ('WHO') has similarly acknowledged that price controls suffocate innovation and delay the arrival of new drugs, or deny them entirely. That's why the nations pursuing that destructive path receive a mere fraction of the new pharmaceuticals that Americans are able to access, which also explains why America outpaces those countries in terms of cancer survival rates and other benefits. Pelosi's bill would also jeopardize nearly $1 trillion of pharmaceutical investment, research and development.

"This is all far too high a price for Americans to pay on behalf of Nancy Pelosi's big-government drug pricing scheme. CFIF therefore opposes H.R. 3 in the strongest terms, applauds Members of Congress who have already voiced opposition to it and urges all House Members to vote 'No.'"

CFIF is a constitutional and free market advocacy organization with over 300,000 supporters and activists nationwide.

###

]]>Press ReleasesWed, 11 Dec 2019 19:34:36 +0000CFIF Files Comments in Support of IRS Rulemaking to Protect Donor Privacy by Reducing Schedule B Filing Requirement for Certain Nonprofitshttps://cfif.org/v/index.php/press-room/4783-cfif-files-comments-in-support-of-irs-rulemaking-to-protect-donor-privacy-by-eliminating-schedule-b-filing-requirement-for-certain-nonprofits
https://cfif.org/v/index.php/press-room/4783-cfif-files-comments-in-support-of-irs-rulemaking-to-protect-donor-privacy-by-eliminating-schedule-b-filing-requirement-for-certain-nonprofitsIn formal comments filed with the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) this week, the Center for Individual Freedom (“CFIF”) offered strong support for the IRS’s proposed rulemaking to eliminate the requirement that certain nonprofit organizations provide the names and addresses of contributors on Schedule B of their annual 990 tax filings.

As CFIF notes, "the Proposed Rulemaking would help protect the First Amendment rights of subject organizations and their citizen donors, without negatively impacting the legally permissible handling of the nation’s tax laws or 501(c) organization tax filings."

]]>Press ReleasesWed, 11 Dec 2019 05:22:40 +0000CFIF Joins Appellate Brief to Uphold Patent Rightshttps://cfif.org/v/index.php/press-room/4755-cfif-joins-appellate-brief-to-uphold-patent-rights
https://cfif.org/v/index.php/press-room/4755-cfif-joins-appellate-brief-to-uphold-patent-rightsALEXANDRIA, VA – The Center for Individual Freedom (CFIF) has joined fellow property rights advocates, including Conservatives for Property Rights, the Innovation Alliance, The Small Business Technology Counsel and The Alliance of U.S. Startups and Inventors for Jobs, in filing an amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the case of Chrimar Systems, Inc. v. ALE USA, Inc.

In this case, a patent owner won a jury trial and final judgment in favor of its claim, which was improperly overturned by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) administrative tribunal, and unjustly relitigated to the detriment of the patent holder. The amici therefore seek en banc appellate review and reversal in a manner consistent with applicable law across other circuit courts.

For years, CFIF has enthusiastically defended America’s legacy of intellectual property (IP) protections, including patent rights. Our Founding Fathers considered IP and patent rights so vital that they explicitly protected them in the text of Article I of the Constitution. As a result, America stands unrivaled as the most inventive, prosperous and powerful nation in human history. That’s a direct consequence of the fact that the U.S. protects IP and patent rights more strongly than any other nation.

Unfortunately, recent years have witnessed slippage in America’s worldwide ranking of patent protections. That sudden and alarming decline is explained in large part by Obama Administration changes to our patent system, such as the creation of the PTAB, which eliminates at least one patent in 80% of petitions that it adjudicates. Judicial branch rulings have weakened patent enforcement and interpretation of federal laws. Combined, those changes have eroded the certainty and property protection that made our patent system the best in the world.

This case fits squarely into that unfortunate dynamic, as the PTAB overturned a jury verdict, which is why CFIF has joined other pro-IP organizations in filing for en banc rehearing. As our brief states, the ruling at issue in this matter, if allowed to stand, "makes patent property holders and district courts uniquely beholden to judges in administrative agencies" like the PTAB.

The letter, addressed to Congress and which was organized by Americans for Tax Reform, is pasted below or can be read here.

October 15, 2019

Dear Members of Congress:

We write in opposition to the prescription drug pricing bill offered by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that would impose an excise tax of up to a 95 percent on hundreds of prescription medicines.

In addition to this new tax, the bill imposes new government price controls that would decimate innovation and distort supply, leading to the same lack of access to the newest and best drugs for patients in other countries that impose these price controls.

Under Speaker Pelosi’s plan, pharmaceutical manufacturers would face a retroactive tax of up to 95 percent on the total sales of a drug (not net profits). This means that a manufacturer selling a medicine for $100 will owe $95 in tax for every product sold with no allowance for the costs incurred. No deductions would be allowed, and it would be imposed on manufacturers in addition to federal and state income taxes they must pay.

The alternative to paying this tax is for the companies to submit to strict government price controls on the medicines they produce. While the Pelosi bill claims this is “negotiation,” the plan is more akin to theft.

If this tax hike plan were signed into law, it would cripple the ability of manufacturers to operate and develop new medicines.

It is clear that the Pelosi plan does not represent a good faith attempt to lower drug prices. Rather, it is a proposal that would crush the pharmaceutical industry, deter innovation, and dramatically reduce the ability of patients to access life-saving medicines.

We urge you to oppose the Pelosi plan that would impose price controls and a 95 percent medicine tax on the companies that develop and produce these medicines.

Sincerely,

Grover Norquist
President, Americans For Tax Reform

James L. Martin
Founder/Chairman, 60 Plus Association

Saulius “Saul” Anuzis
President, 60 Plus Association

Marty Connors
Chair, Alabama Center Right Coalition

Bob Carlstrom
President, AMAC Action

Dick Patten
President, American Business Defense Council

Phil Kerpen
President, American Commitment

Daniel Schneider
Executive Director, American Conservative Union

Steve Pociask
President/CEO, The American Consumer Institute Center for Citizen Research

"Today’s decision by the D.C. Circuit is a huge win for consumers and internet freedom.

"In 2015, the Obama Administration FCC radically reversed two decades of bipartisan consensus by reclassifying internet service as a 'public utility' under laws enacted in 1934 to regulate old-fashioned copper-wire telephone service. Since the 1990s, the internet had flourished and transformed our world like no innovation in history for a simple reason: Administrations of both political parties over two decades, beginning with Clinton/Gore, wisely chose a 'light touch' regulatory approach to the internet. There was no justification for that sudden reversal, and it was not based upon evidence, law or logic. The internet obviously wasn't 'broken' or in need of heavy-handed federal regulatory 'fix.' It was merely a scheme to extend government control over yet another sector of our economy.

"The negative consequences were immediate. Private broadband investment declined for the first time ever outside of an economic recession.

"On that basis, the FCC under new Chairman Ajit Pai restored the bipartisan, light-touch regulatory consensus that existed for more than two decades.

"Despite the Chicken Little predictions by proponents of heavy-handed government regulation, the internet has once again flourished since the FCC reversed the Obama-era Title II rules. Private sector investment in networks and average broadband speeds have both increased dramatically since the FCC’s 2017 order.

"CFIF applauds the Court of Appeals for unanimously recognizing the merits of the FCC’s 2017 correction, which benefits American consumers, our economy, private investment, innovation and employment."

"CFIF unambiguously opposes Nancy Pelosi’s legislation, which amounts to the worst and most far-reaching attempt yet witnessed to impose government control over Americans’ healthcare access.

"Pelosi’s proposal includes such mechanisms as foreign price controls, compulsory arbitration with government bureaucrats, a complete restructuring the popular Medicare Part D program and what amounts to a retroactive 95% tax on hundreds of the most commonly-used medicines in America. As CFIF has long highlighted, America enjoys – by far – the most innovative pharmaceutical industry in the world, accounting for two-thirds of all new lifesaving and life-improving drugs globally. But by importing price controls from foreign nations – which ignore drug patents to extort compliance – to America rather than exporting our more effective free market policies to their shores, American consumers would begin suffering the same drawbacks that consumers in those nations do. Namely, unavailability of those critical lifesaving and life-improving drugs.

"As even the United Nations World Health Organization (WHO) acknowledges, price controls suffocate innovation and delay the arrival of new drugs, or deny them entirely. It’s therefore no accident that nations imposing price controls enjoy a fraction of the new pharmaceuticals that Americans access, and that America outpaces those countries in terms of cancer survival rates and other benefits. Pelosi’s bill would also jeopardize nearly $1 trillion of pharmaceutical investment, research and development.

"All of this is far too high a price for Americans to pay on behalf of Nancy Pelosi’s socialized medicine pet project. CFIF therefore opposes her proposed legislation in the strongest terms, applauds Members of Congress who have already voiced opposition to it and encourages all Americans to contact their Representatives and Senators to express their opposition as well."

CFIF is a constitutional and free market advocacy organization with over 300,000 supporters and activists nationwide.

"CFIF enthusiastically supports the Modern Television Act of 2019, which reduces federal government interference in the American video marketplace, and allows negotiations between broadcasters and video programming distributors to occur in more of a free market environment. Current laws, enacted all the way back in 1992 in a drastically different video environment, distort the free market by tipping the scales in negotiations.

"Those rules governing retransmission consent, 'must-carry' obligations and compulsory copyright were created in a bygone era when most television markets were served by a single monopoly cable provider. Nearly three long decades later, the video market is a very different place. Today, such alternatives as satellite, internet and alternative cable providers offer a wide array of consumer choices. Unfortunately, however, federal regulations remain unchanged and don't reflect the tectonic shifts that have occurred in the video market. What that means is that broadcasters enjoy a bureaucratic advantage during negotiations, which in turn allows them to extract exorbitant retransmission consent fees while retaining the option of invoking must-carry laws. That prevents the free market from properly functioning in this ever-changing consumer arena, and consumers pay the price.

"Removing the federal bureaucracy's finger from the scale offers dramatic improvement, and improves the ability of all parties to negotiate in a free market in which neither side enjoys an improper government advantage. The bipartisan Modern Television Act of 2019 introduced by Representatives Scalise and Eshoo helps accomplish that end. We at CFIF therefore applaud their leadership, and urge Congress to pass the Modern Television Act of 2019 without delay."

CFIF is a constitutional and free market advocacy organization with over 300,000 supporters and activists nationwide.

On behalf of the Center for Individual Freedom (hereinafter “CFIF”) and over 300,000 supporters and activists across the nation, I write our profound concern and opposition regarding any proposal to employ destructive drug price controls as a mechanism to reach a budget agreement.

Specifically, it appears that debt ceiling negotiations may include a destructive proposal to reduce federal spending levels by targeting $115 billion from Medicare, which would derive largely from alleged “Medicare savings” through instituting government-imposed mandatory “inflation rebates.” Inflation rebate proposals work by penalizing drug innovators with higher taxes whenever their products exceed an arbitrary inflation mark. Currently, Medicare Part D’s structure works by employing market-based competition to mitigate drug costs via privately-negotiated rebates, meaning that no specific “price” reliably represents that drug’s underlying price. Accordingly, the proposal would inherently undermine privately-negotiated Part D plan rebates, which the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has said “appear to make the net prices approach the lowest prices obtained in the private sector.” Indeed, as the Altarum Institute has highlighted, those Part D plans currently achieve greater brand medicine rebates than private insurers.

Critically, it must also be noted that inflation rebate proposals would violate non-interference clauses that facilitate competition among Part D plans, which provide a critical part of Part D’s success in mitigating costs since its inception. They would also arbitrarily apply to new pharmaceuticals while bypassing generic brands, which now constitute approximately 90% of Part D prescriptions. The proposal would also inescapably weaken incentives on the part of Part D plan sponsors to negotiate with drug manufacturers and minimize drug spending under a regime of statutorily-imposed rebates, thereby setting a negative precedent for those sponsors. It also bears emphasis that private-sector limits on drug cost increases already exist via “price protection rebates” that Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) negotiate with manufacturers.

Accordingly, imposing price controls in Medicare Part D would fundamentally undermine its entire market-based model, which would in turn reduce research and development and slow progress toward new and improved medicines.

Adding insult to injury, such a proposal would constitute a raid on Medicare for the benefit of other government spending pork. During this era of budgetary waste, the last thing that Congress should consider doing is sacrificing Medicare, particularly when affordability and access to pharmaceutical innovations remains such a top public priority. Budgetary discipline and access to medicines remains a priority of the highest order, but market-oriented solutions, not destructive gimmicks, offer the optimal solution. Any proposal to target Medicare Part D for mandatory inflation rebates has not been subjected to full review, committee research, hearings or debate. American citizens, particularly seniors, should not be subjected to that danger.

Thank you very much for your attention to this important matter, and please contact me at your convenience with any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

/s/

Timothy Lee
Senior Vice President of Legal and Public Affairs

cc: United States Senators

]]>Press ReleasesFri, 19 Jul 2019 21:10:35 +0000CFIF’s Public Education Effort Encourages Grassroots Action Aimed at Urging Mississippi Attorney General’s Office to Get Back to Fighting Crimehttps://cfif.org/v/index.php/press-room/4583-cfifs-public-education-effort-encourages-grassroots-action-aimed-at-urging-mississippi-attorney-generals-office-to-get-back-to-fighting-crime
https://cfif.org/v/index.php/press-room/4583-cfifs-public-education-effort-encourages-grassroots-action-aimed-at-urging-mississippi-attorney-generals-office-to-get-back-to-fighting-crimeALEXANDRIA, VA – The Center for Individual Freedom ("CFIF") this week expanded its public education efforts in Mississippi by launching a new television ad. The ad encourages grassroots action to urge the state attorney general’s ("AG") office to stop the practice of enriching outside plaintiffs' lawyers with over-aggressive claims cloaked in "consumer protection," and get back to fighting real crime.

The ad can be viewed below:

"For too long, attorneys general offices across the country have been misguided in their focus," said CFIF president Jeffrey Mazzella. "Rather than devoting their primary attention to fighting real crime, these offices have been zealous in their pursuit of dubious and what they believe to be politically expedient civil actions against job creators, often enriching aggressive outside plaintiffs’ lawyers in the process. Unfortunately, Mississippi has been a prime culprit of that in recent years," Mazzella continued.

"CFIF’s public education effort, including this new television ad, is designed to create a grassroots groundswell in Mississippi to encourage state elected officials to push the AG’s office to focus more on fighting real crime – both aggressively tackling its crime-fighting obligations in the state and also by partnering with the federal government on issues like illegal immigration," Mazzella concluded.

Specifically, CFIF's ad encourages Mississippians to call Representative Mark Baker and thank him for pushing the AG’s office to tackle crime. In the state legislature, Representative Baker has, among other major legislative initiatives, led the charge to limit the ability of the AG's office to file certain consumer lawsuits. Representative Baker also is pushing the AG’s office to work with the federal government on issues like illegal immigration and border security.

Founded in 1998, CFIF is a constitutional and free-market advocacy organization with more than 250,000 supporters and activists nationwide.

###

]]>Press ReleasesThu, 11 Jul 2019 02:43:45 +0000Center for Individual Freedom Launches Public Education Effort in Mississippihttps://cfif.org/v/index.php/press-room/4579-center-for-individual-freedom-launches-public-education-effort-in-mississippi
https://cfif.org/v/index.php/press-room/4579-center-for-individual-freedom-launches-public-education-effort-in-mississippiALEXANDRIA, VA - The Center for Individual Freedom (“CFIF”) this week launched a public education effort in Mississippi in support of national border security and other law enforcement and crime-related issues in the state.

The effort, which includes a radio ad, is launched at a time when far too many public officials across the country are working to thwart law enforcement, including efforts by President Trump and others to secure the border amid a growing crisis.

Specifically, CFIF is urging Mississippians to contact State Representative Mark Baker and tell him to keep fighting to protect Mississippi families on these issues.

Representative Baker is a former prosecutor and conservative judge who understands the important role of strong law enforcement, supports no-nonsense crime policies, and is standing with President Trump on securing the border.

ATTORNEYS GENERAL MUST STEP UP AND WORK WITH THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION TO HELP FIX BORDER CRISIS

ALEXANDRIA, VA – The Center for Individual Freedom ("CFIF") has released a new radio ad in Mississippi encouraging grassroots action to urge the state Attorney General's office to get back to fighting crime and to work with the Trump administration to help fix the ongoing illegal immigration crisis.

The radio ad builds on CFIF's ongoing public education effort designed to create a grassroots groundswell in Mississippi to encourage state elected officials to push the AG's office to focus more on fighting real crime — both by aggressively tackling its crime-fighting obligations in the state and also by partnering with the federal government on issues like illegal immigration.

]]>Press ReleasesTue, 02 Jul 2019 19:37:55 +0000CFIF Applauds Announcement of Support for T-Mobile/Sprint Merger by FCC Chairman Ajit Pai and Commissioner Brendan Carrhttps://cfif.org/v/index.php/press-room/4532-cfif-applauds-announcement-of-support-for-t-mobilesprint-merger-by-fcc-chairman-ajit-pai-and-commissioner-brendan-carr
https://cfif.org/v/index.php/press-room/4532-cfif-applauds-announcement-of-support-for-t-mobilesprint-merger-by-fcc-chairman-ajit-pai-and-commissioner-brendan-carrALEXANDRIA, VA - Today, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Ajit Pai announced his intention to recommend that the agency green-light the proposed T-Mobile/Sprint merger. Commissioner Brendan Carr similarly announced his support for the transaction. In response, Jeffrey Mazzella, President of the Center for Individual Freedom (CFIF), issued the following statement:

"Today's announcement constitutes a significant step forward for U.S. telecommunications policy, and CFIF applauds the wisdom and leadership demonstrated by Chairman Pai and Commissioner Carr. We at CFIF have consistently emphasized that the transaction would immediately and enormously benefit the American economy and consumers via faster 5G transition, rural broadband acceleration, more jobs, greater private investment in telecommunications, increased market competition, broader nationwide coverage, capacity improvements, performance improvements and lower prices. We accordingly urge the FCC and Department of Justice to complete their respective reviews and approve the merger without delay."

###

]]>Press ReleasesMon, 20 May 2019 17:57:30 +0000CFIF Urges Opposition to S. 977, Legislation to Import Foreign Price Controlshttps://cfif.org/v/index.php/press-room/4475-cfif-urges-opposition-to-s-977-legislation-to-import-foreign-price-controls
https://cfif.org/v/index.php/press-room/4475-cfif-urges-opposition-to-s-977-legislation-to-import-foreign-price-controlsALEXANDRIA, VA— In November of last year, the Center for Individual Freedom (“CFIF”) joined with 57 free-market organizations and individuals on a coalition letter opposing the importation of foreign price controls on prescription drugs, a proposal currently under consideration at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS"). In a coalition video released last week, several leading free-market voices, including CFIF, spoke out once again against the perils of imposing foreign price controls.

Unfortunately, recently introduced legislation by Senator Rick Scott (R-FL) entirely ignores that overwhelming opposition from conservatives and the free-market community and seeks to import foreign price controls into the U.S. This legislation, known as the “Transparent Drug Pricing Act” (S.977), would fix U.S. drug prices to the lowest cost of the same drugs sold in five other countries: Canada, France, the United Kingdom, Japan and Germany.

It is CFIF's strong belief that importing socialist price controls in an effort to lower drug prices is the wrong approach and will reduce access to medicines, kill innovation and harm patients. Therefore, CFIF urges Senators not to cosponsor or vote in favor of this harmful legislation.

In response, Timothy Lee, the Center for Individual Freedom’s (CFIF) Senior Vice President of Legal and Public Affairs, issued the following statement:

"Today, we're witnessing an alarming increase in harassment of private citizens solely on the basis of their political beliefs. For years, IRS policy facilitated that harassment by requiring non-profit organizations to surrender sensitive personal information regarding many donors through what were known as '990 Schedule B' forms. The IRS was prohibited by law from using that private information for any substantive purpose, which raises the question of why the forms were collected at all.

“What those forms did do, however, was open the door for IRS personnel, other government officials and even outside hackers to identify and target private citizens whose political views they found objectionable. The IRS itself acknowledged that Schedule B information was irrelevant to its handling of tax filings, and served no substantive legal purpose.

"In the era of persecution of private citizens for their political beliefs, collection of Schedule B forms is therefore indefensible. The Treasury Department announced earlier this year that the IRS, for many 501(c) exempt organizations, would finally cease the filing requirement of personal identifying information about people who merely exercise their First Amendment freedoms by donating to those organizations.

"Unfortunately, despite Leader McConnell’s leadership in support of donor privacy and First Amendment freedoms, the Senate voted yesterday by the narrowest of margins to reverse the Trump Administration's welcome reform. Accordingly, we urge the House of Representatives to act more wisely in rejecting this CRA effort if and when its opportunity to vote arrives.

“Americans' First Amendment freedoms of speech, association and political participation should not be chilled by IRS rules that serve no legitimate purpose."

###

]]>Press ReleasesThu, 13 Dec 2018 22:59:01 +0000Open Letter to the U.S. Senate: Coalition Opposes Durbin Amendment to Compel Biopharmaceutical Companies to Include List Prices in Direct-To-Consumer Advertisementshttps://cfif.org/v/index.php/press-room/4167-open-letter-to-the-us-senate-coalition-opposes-durbin-amendment-to-compel-biopharmaceutical-companies-to-include-list-prices-in-direct-to-consumer-advertisements
https://cfif.org/v/index.php/press-room/4167-open-letter-to-the-us-senate-coalition-opposes-durbin-amendment-to-compel-biopharmaceutical-companies-to-include-list-prices-in-direct-to-consumer-advertisementsIn an open letter organized by the Center for Individual Freedom and sent today to the U.S. Senate, a prominent coalition of national conservative and free-market organizations urged opposition to an amendment by Senator Richard Durbin to compel biopharmaceutical companies to include list prices in direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertisements. The coalition's opposes that Durbin amendment because it violates the First Amendment, would confuse patients and misdirect federal public health resources.

We the undersigned organizations, on behalf millions of concerned members, supporters and activists across America, write regarding an issue of critical importance: the recent misguided proposal from Senator Richard Durbin to compel biopharmaceutical companies to include list prices in direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertisements. We oppose the Durbin amendment because it violates the First Amendment, would confuse patients and misdirect federal public health resources.

The cost of medicines and prescription drugs remains among the most important health policy discussions today, and we recognize that many consumers struggle to access medicines they need and maintain legitimate questions regarding those medicines' costs.

In that vein, a proposal to compel biopharmaceutical companies to include list prices in DTC advertisements was introduced for consideration by the Trump Administration. We believe that proposal would actually inflict more harm than benefit for patients, and could have unintended consequences of deterring patients from seeking care. In fact, the fiscal year 2019 Labor-Health and Human Services Appropriations bill includes reporting requirements to examine that very issue.

Unfortunately, Senator Durbin has proposed an amendment to H.R. 6147 that would circumvent this process and allow for the use of funds by the Secretary of Health and Human Services to issue regulations on DTC advertising of prescription drugs. That proposed amendment would create a new misbranding violation for failure to include pricing information in a prescription drug DTC advertisement.

Among other dangers, list price constitutes a potentially confusing number for patients. Specifically, including the list price of medicines in DTC ads would not meet the aim of better informing patients, because it is not relevant to what they actually pay and would mislead consumers into thinking that their out-of-pocket costs will be significantly higher than the price that they actually pay for the medicine. Of considerable importance, most patients’ prescriptions are subsidized with a co-pay or co-insurance dictated by their insurance company. Insurance companies in turn usually do not pay the full list price because they receive substantial rebates and discounts. Accordingly, any new requirement for including pricing information in consumer ads should require careful study to determine what information is appropriate to include and how it should be presented and put into proper and understandable context.

Furthermore, the Durbin amendment would require Food and Drug Administration to divert critical public health resources from other activities to enforce the proposed new DTC price disclosure requirement, potentially straining the already understaffed agency.

In addition to the drawbacks for patients and misdirected resources, however, perhaps the most dangerous/unsettling/disturbing aspect of requiring disclosure of list prices in DTC ads is that it raises First Amendment concerns regarding compelled speech.

Only limited exceptions allow the government to compel speech, and none of those exceptions apply in this case. As an initial matter, advertising for pharmaceutical products constitutes commercial speech, and the Supreme Court has made clear commercial speech is protected by the First Amendment. Consequently, courts have repeatedly ruled that the government can only compel disclosure of “purely factual and uncontroversial information.”

Compelled disclosure of list prices simply does not meet these conditions. List prices are not “purely factual,” but rather potentially mislead because payers receive discounts, and rebates and most patients pay a different amount out of pocket. Additionally, that information is far from “uncontroversial” in the current environment, and disclosure in consumer ads of prices higher than what is actually charged would promote controversy.

"On behalf of over 300,000 supporters and activists across the nation, CFIF enthusiastically supports the Next Generation Television Marketplace Act, which would reduce federal government interference in the U.S. video marketplace, and allow negotiations between broadcasters and video programming distributors to occur in more of a free market environment. Current laws, enacted all the way back in 1992, allow the federal government to pick winners and losers by tipping the scales in negotiations that the government has no business distorting.

"Those rules governing retransmission consent, 'must-carry' obligations and compulsory copyright were created in a bygone era when most television markets were served by a single monopoly cable provider. Nearly three long decades later, the video market is a very different place. Today, such alternatives as satellite, internet and alternative cable providers offer a wide array of consumer choices. Unfortunately, however, federal regulations remain unchanged and don't reflect the tectonic shifts that have occurred in the video market. What that means is that broadcasters enjoy a bureaucratic advantage during negotiations, which in turn allows them to extract exorbitant retransmission consent fees while retaining the option of invoking must-carry laws. That prevents the free market from properly functioning in this ever-changing consumer arena, and consumers pay the price.

"The solution is therefore to remove the federal bureaucracy's finger from the scale, and allow all parties to negotiate in a free market in which neither side enjoys an improper government advantage. The Next Generation Television Marketplace Act helps accomplish that end by eliminating the outdated retransmission consent scheme, the must-carry obligation and compulsory copyright license and arbitrary broadcast ownership limits in order to let free market cooperation work. We at CFIF therefore applaud Rep. Scalise's leadership, and urge Congress to pass the Next Generation Television Marketplace Act at long last."

###

]]>Press ReleasesMon, 23 Jul 2018 17:38:26 +0000CFIF Joins Coalition in Support of Scalise/McKinley Anti-Carbon Tax Resolutionhttps://cfif.org/v/index.php/press-room/4153-cfif-joins-coalition-in-support-of-scalisemckinley-anti-carbon-tax-resolution
https://cfif.org/v/index.php/press-room/4153-cfif-joins-coalition-in-support-of-scalisemckinley-anti-carbon-tax-resolutionThis week, the Center for Individual Freedom joined a coalition of more than 40 conservative organizations on a letter, organized by Americans for Tax Reform, in support for a congressional resolution in opposition to any carbon tax.

The undersigned organizations urge you to support the concurrent resolution, introduced by Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) and Congressman David McKinley (R-W.V.), which expresses the sense of the Congress that a carbon tax would be detrimental to the U.S. economy.

We oppose any carbon tax. We oppose a carbon tax because it would lead to less income and fewer jobs for American families.

For example, a 2014 Heritage Foundation report found that a $37 per ton carbon tax would lead to a loss of more than $2.5 trillion in aggregate gross domestic product by 2030. That is more than $21,000 in income loss per family.

In addition, a carbon tax would cost over 500,000 jobs in manufacturing and more than one million jobs by 2030. According to a 2013 CBO report, a carbon tax is highly regressive.

After President Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act into law on December 22, 2017, more than 90 percent of wage earners have had higher take-home pay.

At least 500 companies of all sizes have already announced special bonuses, pay raises, 401(k) match increases, tuition assistance, new training programs and other benefits for workers.

In response, Center for Individual Freedom ("CFIF") President Jeffrey Mazzella issued the following statement:

"As many Americans are all too aware, recent years have witnessed an increase in assaults against our First Amendment freedoms of speech and association. In some cases, the IRS has collected and leaked private information on contributors to 501(c) nonprofit organizations contained in mandatory Schedule B forms that by law were to remain confidential. And across America, hyper-partisan government state-level officials have demanded Schedule B forms and confidential donor information contained therein as part of their campaign to harass organizations and donors with whom they disagree politically.

"With this announcement, the IRS and Treasury are acting on the acknowledgment that Schedule B information is irrelevant to its handling of tax filings, and serves no substantive purpose. In this era of persecution of private citizens for their political beliefs, together with the IRS’s admission that it can't guarantee the confidentiality of the information contained on the Schedule B, this decision is welcome news.

“We at CFIF applaud the Trump Administration Treasury Department and IRS for their leadership and doing the right thing by eliminating the Schedule B form filing requirement for many nonprofit 501(c) organizations."

CFIF has spearheaded the broad conservative and libertarian coalition to eliminate the Schedule B from filing requirement, including, among other efforts, coordinating a letter to President Trump and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin earlier this year signed by more than 60 influential organizations and individuals urging executive action to accomplish that end.

###

]]>Press ReleasesTue, 17 Jul 2018 14:51:48 +0000CFIF President Jeff Mazzella Applauds FCC Vote to Free Up Mid-Band Spectrum, Which Helps to Ensure the U.S. Remains 5G Ready https://cfif.org/v/index.php/press-room/4139-cfif-president-jeff-mazzella-applauds-fcc-vote-to-free-up-mid-band-spectrum-which-helps-to-ensure-the-us-remains-5g-ready-
https://cfif.org/v/index.php/press-room/4139-cfif-president-jeff-mazzella-applauds-fcc-vote-to-free-up-mid-band-spectrum-which-helps-to-ensure-the-us-remains-5g-ready-ALEXANDRIA, VA – Today, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted to expand flexible use of the 3.7 to 4.2 GHz spectrum band as part of its ongoing efforts to encourage U.S. leadership in the next generation of wireless services, including 5G. In response, Center for Individual Freedom (CFIF) President Jeff Mazzella issued the following statement:

"FCC action to make spectrum in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band available for mobile use underscores the importance of mid-band spectrum to making America #5gReady. With today’s vote, along with ongoing efforts to streamline infrastructure policy, the FCC is making great progress that will help pave the way for tremendous economic and technological expansion."

###

]]>Press ReleasesThu, 12 Jul 2018 14:23:49 +0000CFIF Highlights Harmful "Retransmission Consent" Regulations in Comments to DOJ's Antitrust Division's Roundtable on Anticompetitive Regulationshttps://cfif.org/v/index.php/press-room/4086-cfif-highlights-harmful-qretransmission-consentq-regulations-in-comments-to-dojs-antitrust-divisions-roundtable-on-anticompetitive-regulations
https://cfif.org/v/index.php/press-room/4086-cfif-highlights-harmful-qretransmission-consentq-regulations-in-comments-to-dojs-antitrust-divisions-roundtable-on-anticompetitive-regulationsThe Center for Individual Freedom ("CFIF") this week filed comments with the Department of Justice Antitrust Division’s “roundtable” on anticompetitive regulation. In the comments, CFIF Senior Vice President of Legal and Public Affairs Timothy Lee describes how government regulation distorts retransmission consent negotiations between television stations and pay-TV operators. They prevent the parties from negotiating efficient and innovative carriage arrangements and tend to lead to higher prices. While such regulation may be appropriate for mandatory carriage, they have no place in what should be marketplace negotiations.

On behalf of the Center for Individual Freedom (hereinafter "CFIF") and over 300,000 supporters and activists across the nation, I write to draw your attention to a series of anti-competitive regulations governing “retransmission consent” negotiations for pay-TV carriage of broadcast television stations. Eliminating these regulations and instead permitting the marketplace to govern carriage terms of these broadcast stations would encourage innovation, better enable pay-TV providers meet the needs of their subscribers and very likely lower retail prices.

About the Center for Individual Freedom (CFIF)

Founded in 1998, CFIF is a constitutional and free-market advocacy organization. CFIF seeks to focus public, legislative and judicial attention on the rule of law as embodied in the federal and state constitutions, and on policies that advance free markets, private investment and greater innovation. In addition, the Center seeks to foster intellectual discourse by bringing together independent thinkers to examine broad-ranging issues of individual freedom in our global society.

Government Interference in Retransmission Consent Negotiations

The relationship between pay-TV providers and providers of video programming except for broadcast programming has always been governed by purely market-based transactions. Broadcast stations, however, are different. They, and only they, can choose between one of two different regulatory regimes for determining their carriage arrangements with pay TV providers.

Under the “must carry” regime, the relationship between pay-TV providers and broadcast stations is completely regulated and involves no market-based transactions of any sort. Pay-TV providers must carry the station in question, and the station cannot charge fees for such carriage.

Under the “retransmission consent” regime, by contrast, a pay-TV provider cannot carry the station without its permission. The station can, and invariably does, negotiate a fee known as a "retransmission consent payment."

Public television stations must choose must-carry, and most smaller and less-watched commercial stations do as well. Affiliates of the major networks, by contrast, almost always choose retransmission consent. They can often charge retransmission consent fees that are comparable or higher than the license fees charged by even the most popular cable networks.

While broadcasters claim that retransmission consent negotiations are purely “marketplace” negotiations, that is not correct. In reality, the carriage arrangements between local TV stations and pay-TV providers must satisfy a set of stringent conditions and regulations that have nothing to do with the “marketplace.” For example:

The government forces cable operators to include all local broadcast networks in any bundle of programming sold to subscribers. Thus, cable subscribers must purchase access to all broadcast networks as a precondition of purchasing access to any other programming. 47 U.S.C. § 543(b)(7).

The government mandates that cable operators and satellite operators offer all broadcast programming “without material degradation” and at the “same quality of signal processing and carriage” offered any other programming. 47 C.F.R. § 76.62.

Those regulations may make sense for must-carry stations. A local broadcast station elects must-carry when the pay-TV provider has no commercial interest in carrying the signal of the local TV station and is in a sense being “forced” to carry the signal. In such cases, it may be necessary for the government to specify a set of conditions and requirements that the carriage agreements must satisfy in order to guarantee that the local TV station does not receive “inferior” carriage terms.

If a station elects retransmission consent, however, the pay-TV provider is no longer being “forced” to carry the signal. Rather, Congress intended for the two parties to determine the terms and conditions of carriage. Thus, there is no more justification for regulating the carriage conditions in agreements between pay-TV providers and local TV stations that elect retransmission consent than there is to regulate the carriage conditions of agreements between pay-TV providers and other programmers. In the absence of any government interference, we would expect the parties to negotiate efficient carriage terms that maximized their joint gain and to then negotiate a license fee that splits the gains from that efficient relationship between them. No “push” from the government is necessary to achieve this result.

Effect of Government Interference in Retransmission Consent Negotiations

It is not only unnecessary for the government to interfere in retransmission consent negotiations, it is affirmatively harmful to the parties and consumers alike.

First, those rules inhibit innovation and restrict the ability of the parties to negotiate fully efficient relationships. That harms consumers, because it prevents parties from providing the products that consumers most want.

The government now mandates that every pay-TV bundle of programming contain every broadcast station, which constitutes an obvious example of such a harmful and un-needed regulation. Yet online providers – who are not governed by those retransmission consent rules – increasingly offer smaller bundles of programming more narrowly tailored to subscribers’ individual interests. Almost every observer views that as a positive development for consumers. Yet pay-TV operators cannot match those offerings, in part because they cannot, by law, omit broadcast stations from any of their service offerings.

The government also requires that pay-TV providers offer broadcasters the same “signal processing and carriage” as offered to other programmers. In the near future, however, pay-TV operators will likely begin to experiment with offering some programming in ultra-HD or 4k resolution. It is likely that pay-TV providers will begin by offering only a limited number of networks at that higher resolution. Were the FCC to interpret this rule as requiring pay-TV operators to offer all broadcast stations at ultraHD or 4k once they begin to experiment at all with this new technology, it could slow or even halt the rollout of this new technology. Here again, the harm would flow to consumers.

Similar issues also arise with respect to the government mandate to offer broadcasters preferential channel placement. Once again, those restrictions limit the ability of pay-TV providers to experiment with new and potentially more intuitive channel groupings that may appeal to consumers. Likewise, parties could negotiate their own versions of network non-duplication and syndicated exclusivity arrangements if the protections offered by those rules are efficient. Private parties, moreover, would be able to do a better job of negotiating agreements finely tuned to match their own particular circumstances, rather than being forced to adopt a “one-size-fits-all” arrangement mandated by government.

Second, all of the government intervention described above creates an entirely different form of harm because it favors one party to the negotiation (broadcasters) over the other party (pay TV providers) to the negotiation. Broadcasters receive those terms by law before the negotiation has even begun. They do not need to bargain for them by, for example, lowering the license fees that they charge. Thus, mandating those broadcaster-favorable terms instead of allowing them to be part of the negotiation essentially increases the bargaining power of broadcasters, and likely allows them to negotiate higher license fees than they would otherwise be able. Of course, a substantial share of those increases in license fees are ultimately passed on to consumers in the form of higher subscription fees.

Recommendation

We believe that, absent a demonstrated and uncorrectable market failure, the marketplace remains the best mechanism for allocating goods and services and directing economic activity. By distorting negotiations between the parties, the current retransmission consent regime limits the benefits that competitive markets can produce by artificially restricting parties to agree to regulatory conditions appropriate (if at all) only in the context of must carry. That harms consumers by limiting efficient and innovative arrangements between broadcasters and pay-TV carriers and by placing upward pressure on prices. Negotiations over the distribution of the signals of local broadcast stations electing retransmission consent should take place in the same free marketplace that today works perfectly well for all other types of programming.

Some of these requirements are found in the Communications Act, and thus require Congressional intervention to remedy. Others, however, can be fixed, or at least ameliorated, by the FCC. The FCC could, for example, eliminate the network nonduplication and syndicated rules. It could also clarify that the material degradation and buy-through rules apply only to must-carry stations. The Antitrust Division should urge it to do so.

Sincerely,

Timothy Lee
Senior Vice President of Legal and Public Affairs
Center for Individual Freedom

]]>Press ReleasesTue, 29 May 2018 21:32:21 +0000Statement by CFIF President Jeffrey Mazzella On Comcast's Announced Interest In Bidding for 21st Century Fox Assetshttps://cfif.org/v/index.php/press-room/4078-statement-by-cfif-president-jeffrey-mazzella-on-comcasts-announced-interest-in-bidding-for-21st-century-fox-assets
https://cfif.org/v/index.php/press-room/4078-statement-by-cfif-president-jeffrey-mazzella-on-comcasts-announced-interest-in-bidding-for-21st-century-fox-assetsALEXANDRIA, VA— This morning, Comcast announced that it is considering and preparing an offer for certain assets of 21st Century Fox. In response, Jeffrey Mazzella, President of the Center for Individual Freedom, issued the following statement:

"Today's announcement is yet more evidence that free markets work. Instead of currying regulatory favor, bidders must be allowed to compete openly and fairly, and 21st Century Fox's board of directors must act in the best interests of its shareholders.

"Despite the empty arguments we may hear from anti-market extremists for whom more government intervention is the answer to every question, the undeniable truth is that the film and television businesses have never been more competitive, dynamic or creatively rich. Consumers have more choices than ever before and consumers, not government bureaucrats, are empowered to pick winners and losers with their viewing choices. In such a competitive environment, there's no credible argument for why a proposed merger like this one shouldn't be approved."

###

]]>Press ReleasesWed, 23 May 2018 18:27:44 +0000CFIF Applauds Senator Mike Lee's Introduction of the SMARTER Act of 2018 https://cfif.org/v/index.php/press-room/4066-cfif-applauds-senator-mike-lee-for-introducing-the-smarter-act-of-2018-
https://cfif.org/v/index.php/press-room/4066-cfif-applauds-senator-mike-lee-for-introducing-the-smarter-act-of-2018-ALEXANDRIA, VA – Today, Senator Mike Lee (R - Utah) introduced the Standard Merger and Acquisition Reviews Through Equal Rules (SMARTER) Act in the United States Senate. Among other advancements, the SMARTER Act will address concerns that parties to a proposed merger or acquisition endure different injunction standards in court challenges, as well as different processes, depending upon which federal antitrust agency happens to be reviewing the transaction.

In response, Center for Individual Freedom ("CFIF") Senior Vice President of Legal and Public Affairs Timothy Lee issued the following statement:

"The Center for Individual Freedom applauds Senator Mike Lee on the introduction of the SMARTER Act of 2018. Among other improvements, this bill includes key reforms to the flawed Federal Communications Commission's (FCC's) merger review process, including: 1) establishing a reasonable time limit for agency review to ensure fairer, more transparent and timely decisions, and 2) ending the ability to effectively kill transactions by designating them for hearing before Administrative Law Judges, instead requiring such cases to be litigated in federal court just as the Justice Department must when contesting proposed transactions.

"CFIF urges quick Senate passage of the commonsense legislation."

###

]]>Press ReleasesTue, 15 May 2018 21:00:34 +0000Coalition Urges IRS Rulemaking on Donor Privacy/Elimination of Schedule B Form Filing Requirementhttps://cfif.org/v/index.php/press-room/4065-coalition-urges-irs-rulemaking-on-donor-privacyelimination-of-schedule-b-form-filing-requirement
https://cfif.org/v/index.php/press-room/4065-coalition-urges-irs-rulemaking-on-donor-privacyelimination-of-schedule-b-form-filing-requirementWASHINGTON, D.C. – In a letter sent today, a coalition of more than 60 influential organizations and individuals called on President Donald Trump and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin to protect First Amendment freedoms of speech and association, and help prevent further targeting of nonprofit organizations and their donors on the basis of ideology. The letter specifically urges them to encourage an IRS rulemaking to eliminate the Schedule B form filing requirement for 501(c) exempt organizations.

Schedule B, which is currently a mandatory IRS form that nonprofit organizations must file with their end-of-year returns, lists the names, addresses and other intimate information of certain donors. By law, it is supposed to remain private and confidential. In recent years, however, the IRS’s collection and retention of that information has resulted in persecution and targeting by not only the IRS, but other government officials – specifically hyper-partisan state attorneys general who have demanded and sought to use the information to harass and intimidate organizations and individual donors that do not share their ideological and political beliefs.

This latest effort, organized by the Center for Individual Freedom ("CFIF"), follows similar pleas to Congress for legislative action earlier this year and last year. While a permanent legislative fix would be ideal, the coalition explains in this latest letter that, “Congress’ ongoing failure to act has left nonprofit organizations and their donors vulnerable to further targeting, thus justifying action by the Administration.”

"In the absence of legislation, the IRS can and should initiate a rulemaking to eliminate the Schedule B requirement, thereby preventing IRS officials and activist state attorneys general from exploiting the confidential information to target groups and individual Americans with whom they politically disagree," the letter reads.

"Such a rulemaking is well within the IRS’s prerogative. Congress never adopted the Schedule B donor disclosure requirement for most exempt 501(c) organizations. Yet the disclosure requirement applies today to all exempt organizations, as the Treasury Department and IRS made the decision independently of Congress to require the filing of Schedule B as part of the Form 990 annual information return of all exempt organizations."

]]>Press ReleasesTue, 15 May 2018 14:22:42 +0000CFIF Urges U.S. Senate Support for the Music Modernization Acthttps://cfif.org/v/index.php/press-room/4064-cfif-urges-us-senate-support-for-the-music-modernization-act
https://cfif.org/v/index.php/press-room/4064-cfif-urges-us-senate-support-for-the-music-modernization-actMay 14, 2018

Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Dear Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Feinstein and Members of the Committee:

On behalf of over 250,000 supporters and activists across the nation, the Center for Individual Freedom ("CFIF") writes to express our strongest support for S. 2823, the Music Modernization Act. Similar legislation recently passed in the House of Representatives by a 415-0 vote, reflecting the unanimous recognition of the urgency of this matter, as well as the wisdom of its provisions. We urge the Senate to register similar unanimity.

For far too long under existing federal law, musical artists have received compensation whenever their post-1972 recordings are played, but in many cases not for their pre-1972 recordings. That's simply an indefensible and illogical state of affairs that should not be allowed to persist.

Fortunately, the Music Modernization Act can rectify that distortion and restore greater fairness for all stakeholders in our system of music licensing laws at long last. Combining several previously introduced legislative reforms - the Compensating Legacy Artists for their Songs, Service & Important Contributions to Society (CLASSICS) Act, Songwriters Equity Act of 2015, the Fair Play Fair Pay Act and the Allocation for Music Producers (AMP) Act - the Music Modernization Act addresses multiple issues, including establishment of federal copyright protection for artists' pre-1972 recordings, creation of a single licensing entity to administer music publishing rights for all digital music and assurance of royalty receipt by producers and engineers for their own invaluable contributions to an American music industry that they help sustain.

All of this helps explain why the Music Modernization Act claims such rare unanimity across political divides and within the music industry itself. It offers a fair system at long last for songwriters, producers, engineers, digital music platforms, recording artists themselves and other industry participants.

We at CFIF therefore urge your support for this common-sense consensus reform.

Thank you very much for your attention to this matter, and please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions, concerns or comments.

Sincerely,

/s/

Jeffrey Mazzella
President
Center for Individual Freedom

cc: All Members of the United States Senate

]]>Press ReleasesMon, 14 May 2018 18:50:57 +0000CFIF Urges IRS Rulemaking to Help Prevent Targeting and Harassment of Organizations and Individual Donorshttps://cfif.org/v/index.php/press-room/4029-cfif-urges-irs-rulemaking-to-help-prevent-targeting-and-harassment-of-organizations-and-individual-donors
https://cfif.org/v/index.php/press-room/4029-cfif-urges-irs-rulemaking-to-help-prevent-targeting-and-harassment-of-organizations-and-individual-donorsIn a letter sent today to President Trump and Treasury Secretary Mnuchin, the Center for Individual Freedom ("CFIF") urged them to encourage the IRS to initiate a formal rulemaking to eliminate the Schedule B form filing requirement for 501(c) exempt organizations.

Read the letter below.

April 19, 2018

The Honorable Donald Trump
Office of the President of the United States
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006

The Honorable Steven Mnuchin
Office of the Secretary of the Treasury
Department of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20220

Dear President Trump and Secretary Mnuchin:

On behalf of the Center for Individual Freedom (CFIF) and more than 250,000 activists and supporters across the nation, I write regarding an issue of utmost importance: preventing Internal Revenue Service (IRS) targeting of nonprofit organizations on the basis of ideology, and protecting the First Amendment freedoms of speech and association of those organizations by eliminating IRS collection of sensitive information on their donors.

As you know, recent years have witnessed an assault against First Amendment free speech and association rights. In numerous instances, the IRS has collected and leaked sensitive identifiable information regarding contributors to 501(c) organizations contained in the "Schedule B" form that is supposed to remain confidential. Moreover, the Schedule B form and confidential donor information contained therein have been demanded and used by other government officials, specifically hyper-partisan state attorneys generals, to harass and intimidate organizations that do not share their ideological and political beliefs.

The IRS itself has acknowledged that Schedule B information is irrelevant to the legally permissible handling of tax filings by 501(c) organizations. Indeed, both the previous IRS Commissioner and IRS Exempt Organizations Director made public statements in 2015 questioning the need for Schedule B forms and suggested the IRS could not guarantee the confidentiality of the information being provided.

Earlier this year, Congress introduced the Preventing IRS Abuse and Protecting Free Speech Act, H.R. 4916, which mirrors legislation passed by the House of Representatives last year that eliminates the Schedule B filing requirement. CFIF is leading a broad coalition of more than 100 of the nation’s most influential conservative and libertarian organizations and individuals in support of H.R. 4916 and all other efforts to eliminate the IRS's indefensible and pointless Schedule B collection requirement. A recent letter signed by each member of that broad coalition in support of eliminating the Schedule B requirement is attached hereto.

While a permanent legislative fix like H.R. 4916 would be ideal, we also acknowledge the difficulty of securing Congressional passage for your signature in the current environment. Even in the absence of legislation, however, the IRS can and should initiate a rulemaking to eliminate the Schedule B requirement, thereby preventing IRS officials and activist state attorneys general from exploiting the confidential information to target groups and individual Americans with whom they politically disagree.

Such a rulemaking is well within the IRS’s prerogative. Congress never adopted the Schedule B donor disclosure requirement for most exempt 501(c) organizations. Yet the disclosure requirement applies today to all exempt organizations, as the Treasury Department and IRS made the decision independent of Congress to require the filing of Schedule B as part of the Form 990 annual information return of all exempt organizations.

Mr. President and Mr. Secretary, there is simply no justification for the IRS to continue using Schedule B to collect sensitive data on Americans who simply seek to exercise their First Amendment free speech and free association rights. As evidenced by the attached letter recently sent to Congress, the entire center-right community stands united in our efforts to eliminate the Schedule B. We, therefore, urge you to exercise your authority to encourage an IRS rulemaking as soon as possible to accomplish that goal.